Posted by 
“In any civilised community the arts … serious or comic, light or demanding, must occupy a central place. Their enjoyment should not be regarded as something remote from everyday life.” This was a central statement in the white paper (a statement of policy intent) issued 60 years ago by Jennie Lee, the UK’s first minister for the arts under Labour prime minister Harold Wilson in 1965.
Outlining A Policy for the Arts – The First Steps was the first white paper for the arts (and the only one until 2016), and suggested that the arts should be publicly supported, also arguing for increased local and regional support besides national institutions.
Many of Lee’s assertions still ring true today, not least that, “Today’s artists need more financial help, particularly in the early years before they have become established”. There were echoes of that 1965 statement of support for the arts in Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy’s recent announcement of a £270 million funding package. Indeed, the timing was no accident, Nandy explicitly referenced Lee’s “vision for accessibility in the arts”.
This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.
It’s a broadly welcome intervention for a sector in straitened circumstances. A drop of more than 30% investment through local authorities in England since 2010, and of 21%, overall has left organisations struggling to maintain infrastructure, creating a drag on new developments. So an injection of government support for public assets like museums and libraries is a necessary step to stem the decline.
Much, though, has changed since 1965. Absent from Lee’s communitarian account of governmental support for the arts is the language of economic return. The intervening decades have seen a sea change in the logics of arts funding.
While the stated benefits of arts to society – and particularly education – remain salient, the emphasis has shifted over time from support to “investment”, with the arts and culture increasingly recognised and valued for, as Nandy puts it, “their growth potential to drive our economy forward”.
This rhetorical and practical co-mingling of “culture” with the “creative industries” is a longitudinal shift. In political terms this was made clear by the 1997 rebranding of the Department for National Heritage (the first “culture” department, founded by Conservative prime minister John Major in 1992) as the Department for Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) the last time Labour returned from a long spell in opposition.
This defence of arts funding in “instrumental” terms (its economic return, or value in bumping up educational achievements) is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, there’s a risk of losing sight of culture’s intrinsic value as something worthy of support – art for art’s sake.
At the same time, it has been accompanied by a move away from the more patrician conception of what merited state support. National institutions and the “high arts” were the main focus in the birth of the arts councils as part of the major overhaul of the role of the state – the postwar consensus – after the second world war.
This points towards wider tensions in arts funding and the DCMS portfolio that derive from the evolving landscape since 1965. There was a strong emphasis in Lee’s paper, and in Nandy’s recent announcement, on buildings, infrastructure and established spaces. Vital as these are, the idea of what counts as culture has moved on and expanded since then.
Even beyond their economic potential, the cultural value of practices more traditionally associated with commercial activity has become more central to the national conversation.
Arts education has also become strategically important in both economic terms and in supporting widening access to opportunities across society, requiring a broad conception of “the arts”. The barriers between high art and popular culture have become porous, and this has a bearing on state support, especially when cultural activity overall is reeling from a pandemic and years of austerity.
This is at the heart of those sectors left out of the current largesse. Drawing on both economic and cultural arguments Michael Kill, chief executive of the Night Time Industries Association, has noted the absence in Nandy’s proposal of live music venues, nightclubs and festivals.
“The government has placed traditional and heritage culture at the forefront while completely ignoring the vital creative spaces that fuel innovation, inspire younger generations, and contribute significantly to our economy,” he wrote recently.
DCMS funding is also a microcosm of any government spending in that it also comes with questions around opportunity cost (as the recent announcement about boosting the defence budget and immediate ramifications for foreign aid also make clear). Here too, the grassroots are a factor.
Mark Davyd of the Music Venue Trust, for instance, has pointed out that his suggested “£20m to open 40 new grassroots music venues” was derided, but that there’s “£15m to build yet another hall for the National Railway Museum and £5m to build a poetry centre, and nobody thinks that £20m is funny.”
Also rising rapidly up the agenda are concerns about the longer term impact of AI on creative careers, another area in which the DCMS – and the Department of Science Innovation and Technology – might see their plans for growth at odds with those in the creative industries and organisations.
Artists are objecting to a suggested exception to copyright restrictions that would require them to actively “opt out” of their work being used to train AI models, and which benefit AI companies with the presumption that works can be used for that purpose.
None of this is easy, especially after a long period of austerity in the arts, and a context of global uncertainty. But Nandy’s recent announcement of funding can only be seen as a holding action to halt the deterioration.
To realise Jennie Lee’s vision, a more substantive, structural approach is needed, one that brings those activities at the grassroots, and at the margins of traditional views of “culture” under the umbrella of funding.
Adam Behr has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the British Academy.
